Bell, et al v. City of Boise, et al, No. 11-35674 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants enforced two local ordinances in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for retrospective relief because those claims were not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; the court reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief because those claims have not been mooted by defendants' voluntary conduct; the court did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment challenges; and the court held that jurisdiction existed as to plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims and remanded for a consideration of the merits in the first instance.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which plaintiffs, who either are or have been homeless, alleged that police officers enforced two local camping and sleeping ordinances against them, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs contended that defendants’ policy, custom, and practice of enforcing these ordinances had the effect of criminalizing homelessness and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The panel reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims for retrospective relief, determining that those claims were not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The panel held that although plaintiffs sought relief designed to remedy injuries suffered from a state court judgment, they did not allege that the state court committed legal error, nor did they seek relief from the state court judgment itself. Rather, plaintiffs asserted as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act by an adverse party: the City’s allegedly unconstitutional enforcement of the ordinances. The panel also reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief because those claims had not been mooted by defendants’ voluntary conduct. In reversing, the panel did not reach the merits of plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims. Rather, the panel held that jurisdiction existed as to plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims and remanded for a consideration of the merits in the first instance.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.